DCI:

SÃO PAULO – A Anhanguera Educacional anunciou o lançamento de uma oferta de 29 milhões de units no Brasil, com esforços para colocação no exterior. A distribuição pública secundária inclui opção de lote suplementar de até 15% das units (4,35 milhões de papéis). Sem considerar o lote suplementar, a oferta pode alcançar R$ 640,9 milhões, levando-se em conta o preço do fechamento de ontem, de R$ 22,10. Cada unit é formada por uma ação ordinária e seis preferenciais.

O preço final será determinado no encerramento do procedimento de bookbuilding (recolhimento das intenções de compra), previsto para 8 de dezembro. O período de reserva da oferta ao varejo é de 30 de novembro a 7 de dezembro, para investimento mínimo de R$ 3 mil e máximo de R$ 300 mil. Serão oferecidos aos investidores não institucionais entre 10% e 15% das ações ofertadas pela empresa.

A data prevista de início de negociação das units na BM&F Bovespa é 10 de dezembro. A liquidação da oferta ocorrerá em 14 de dezembro. Os coordenadores da oferta são os bancos Itaú BBA (líder), Merrill Lynch, Santander e Credit Suisse.

EDP

A Energias do Brasil (EDP) arrecadou R$ 441,750 milhões em uma oferta pública secundária de ações. Foram oferecidos 14.091.000 papéis, com lote suplementar de 1.409.000 ações, com captação de R$ 431,5 milhões.

Fonte: asaps.it

Un’immagine azzeccata per definire lo stato attuale degli USA è quella che li dipinge come un paziente dopo un grave incidente automobilistico: dopo il crollo di Lehman Brothers i medici (FED e Amministrazione americana) hanno tamponato le ferite e fermato le emorragie, e ora stanno somministrando massicce dosi di ricostituenti mentre è iniziata la fase riabilitativa (Ethan S. Harris  -  Merrill Lynch). I segnali di ritrovata salute si manifestano solitamente dal lato della produzione, anche se talvolta, come nell’ultima settimana, confortano di più i deboli, ma positivi, segnali che arrivano dai consumi (vendite al dettaglio +1,4% a Ottobre mese su mese, e terzo incremento consecutivo delle vendite “core”). Il dato di Ottobre della produzione (+0,1%) è stato deludente, il più modesto degli aumenti degli ultimi quattro mesi: insomma, due passi avanti, uno indietro.

A questo proposito, converrà notare fin da ora che con ogni probabilità il dato dell’aumento trimestrale del PIL USA del terzo trimestre verrà rivisto al ribasso martedì prossimo, e portato dall’euforico +3,5% ad un più mite +2,6 – 3%.

Ma mentre il malato zoppica e fa le sue prove riabilitative, il terreno intorno a lui viene mantenuto pulito e pianeggiante: tutte le banche centrali del mondo industrializzato cantano all’unisono lo stesso ritornello “i tassi di interesse resteranno bassi a lungo e finchè ce ne sarà bisogno” (FED, BCE e BOJ). Sottolineiamo che non esiste una regola analoga alla Taylor’s Rule su quanto a lungo sia opportuno tenere bassi i tassi per ottenere una ripresa stabile; mentre gli accademici sono riusciti a formulare un metodo di condotta che mette in relazione tassi di interesse e inflazione, tassi e sviluppo economico costituiscono ancora territorio inesplorato dove necessariamente si naviga a vista.

Quanto alle strategie di uscita dall’attuale politica monetaria (“exit strategies”) queste costituiranno il motivo conduttore di molte dichiarazioni ai giornali e lanci televisivi al di là della reale consistenza delle notizie. Un piccolo vademecum su come si deve comportare l’investitore scafato è il seguente:
a. Concentrarsi sulle dichiarazioni dei membri meno estremisti delle Banche centrali, sia falchi sia colombe; eliminare come rumore di fondo le tesi oltranziste
b. Tenere in conto che gli istituti che battono moneta sono fatti di funzionari pubblici, non di esperti di comunicazione, e che gaffes e incomprensioni saranno possibili su materia così incandescente. Ricordare che i falchi crederanno più di una volta di essere arrivati al momento fatidico, e grideranno “Al lupo !” prematuramente.

A corroborare la posizione attuale rilassata delle banche centrali stanno i dati sull’inflazione: nell’Unione Europea siamo a +1,2%, ampiamente sotto il livello massimo previsto dalla BCE, pari al 2%. USA e Giappone sono ancora più tranquilli.

La settimana che inizia lunedì 23 è ricca di dati, in particolare nel suo primo giorno (PMI o “Purchasing Managers’ Index” dei servizi, del manifatturiero e composito) in Europa e poi negli States con dati sulle case, sui profitti, e con le minute delle riunioni FED del 3 e 4 Novembre scorso, contenenti le previsioni su inflazione, sviluppo e occupazione. Giovedì 26, invece, Festa del Ringraziamento e mercati chiusi.

CONCLUSIONI

Non ci sembra di vedere cambiamenti di rilievo rispetto alla rotta tracciata: l’economia è in lenta e faticosa ripresa, e ogni giorno che passa riguadagna vigore, salvo piccole ricadute prontamente tamponate ove ce ne sia bisogno (vedi il prolungamento del programma di rottamazione auto negli USA fino ad Aprile 2010). Ridurre le posizioni in titoli di Stato e monetario allo stretto indispensabile, puntare su settori dove il rapporto rischio-rendimento è equilibrato: obbligazionario emergente a breve, azionario selettivo e hedge funds.

Stelvio Bo – Bonoplus – www.bonoplus.it – Milano

Il mercato questa settimana sembra essere un pò più mosso degli inizi del mese, ma il movimento sembra spingere al ribasso i titoli che sono si sono mantenuti alti nelle scorse settimane.

BK IRELAND 19 VRN (XS0186652557) sembra aver completato la prima parte di discesa a 89, si potrebbe pensare di acquistare in attesa di un rimbalzo di un punto percentuale.

I bancari italiani sembrano un pò affatticati, in particolare gli Unicredit che nelle due settimane passate si presentavano abbastanza nervosi, su questi manterrei una certa prudenza.
MEDIOBANCA 14 FRN (XS0336285878) per esempio esprime una forza ribassista preoccupante e anche se i prezzi sono interessanti non ci farei affidamento.

Titolo interessante di oggi:
- MERRILL LYNCH 11 (IT0006621285) con trading range tra i 91,20 e i 93,50
- ARCELOR 10 5.125 (XS0176671732) con trading range tra 101,86 e 103,70

Buon trading

SustainDex (environment|sustainable|clean/bio tech)

Eastside

RePower – 158th Commerce Pk | 16035 NE Cameron Blvd | 12,750 SF

GeneralBizDex (consulting|finance|insurance|legal|other)

Central Business District

Construction Systems Mgmt – Spalding Bldg | 319 SW Washington | 615 SF

Principal Real Estate Investors – NW Corp Park | 3481 NW Yeon | 13,200 SF

Eastside

C&P Attorneys – Sunnybrook Corp Ctr | 9200 SE Sunnybrook | 2,539 SF

Columbia Pacific Maritime – 2410 SE 121st Ave | 1,085 SF

Rose City Blue Print & Supply – Airport Center I | 5835 NE 122nd | 4,421 SF

Westside

Myatt & Bell PC – 1 Lincoln Center | 10300 SW Greenburg Rd | 1,967 SF

Merrill Lynch – 4004 Kruse Way Place | 4,325 SF renewal

Forest City Trading – 4 Lincoln Center | 10250 SW Greenburg | 12,228 SF

Beaverton Public Library – Murray Scholls Town Ctr | 11200 SW Murray Scholls | 7,032 SF

Bluestone & Hockley – 9320 SW Barbur Blvd | 13,704 SF

Vancouver

Great Western Malting – Port of Vancouver | 2501 Kotobuki Way | 43,500 SF

Westside

Epic Land Solutions – Plaza West | 9600 SW Oak – Tigard | 1,413 SF

TechDex (apps|provider|hardware|var)

Central Business District

Crowd Factory – Oregon Trail Bldg | 333 SW Fifth | 4,095 SF

Systems Management – Willamette Park Plaza | 6420 SW Macadam | 1,973 SF

Westside

Transcore – Creekside 4 | 1100 SW Stratus St | 38,065 SF

MediaDex (traditional|digital|research)

Central Business District

McClenahan Bruer – Water Tower | 5331 SW Macadam Ave | 5,536 SF

by Cari Tuna, for The wall Street Journal, November 23, 2009.

Taking Cue From Social-Networking Sites, Activisits and Investors Share Information, Recommendations

As shareholders gain clout in corporate boardrooms, entrepreneurs and activists are trying to prod individual investors to use their power.

New Web sites compiling information, voting recommendations and social-networking tools aim to make it easier for investors to vote proxies to elect corporate directors or set governance rules. One site, MoxyVote.com, allows investors to align their votes for or against management, or with interest groups. The sites’ backers hope to reverse a decline in proxy participation by retail investors.

The Web initiatives come as Congress considers giving shareholders annual nonbinding votes on executive pay and the Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed giving investors more leeway to nominate directors…(continue reading)

Bank of America HQ, Charlotte NC

After much soul searching and consumption of Skittles over the weekend, I’ve decided to formally throw my hat in the ring for the position of Bank of America CEO.

Frankly, folks, this is the easiest job in finance right now – akin to taking over an NFL franchise the year after it goes 0 and 16.  Regardless of what you do, it would be hard to NOT make an improvement.

Below is TRB’s Nine Point Plan for Fixing Bank of America.  B of A board members who are feelin’ me can holla by phone or hit me on LinkedIn to set up a meeting…

1.  No More Bank of Amerillwide:  The bankers become B of A, the investment people become Merrill Lynch.  Period.  No more muddling of the brands, you have a bank and a brokerage, keep them distinct.  Citigroup already proved that the “supermarket” concept for financial services is a failure 10 years ago.  Oh, and the janitorial staff will henceforth be known as Countrywide.

2.  Ken Lewis banished from the company in any capacity.  He’s accomplished great things for the firm in the past (pre-2007), but his continued involvement at this point prevents any kind of forward momentum.

3.  Corporate HQ moved from Charlotte.  Not to NYC but to Washington DC, ya know, to be closer to the shareholders.

4.  Investment banking activity at B of A must cease immediately.  Guys, you’re not good at it and cannot compete, you’re just paying people to stay in the game.  All worthwhile banking deals and employees become Merrill.  Put the Goldman Envy up in the attic along with the old Fleet paraphernalia, the Avril Lavigne CDs and the rubber Livestrong bracelets.  The aught’s decade is over, the moment has passed.

5.  12 month moratorium on new branches/ ATM alcoves.  Only open a new location if you can shut down or sell off an unproductive one.

6.  Pay back TARP.  By Any Means Necessary.  A timetable must be established and executed upon regardless of the “uncertainty”.  This was the smartest thing Goldman and Morgan did.  It closed the chapter.

7.  Cut Bank of America sell-side research, brokerage operations, and retail advisor sales force.  Raise payouts for top advisors, move them over to Merrill where they belong.

8.  Announce joint venture with Small Business Association.  While trillions in bailouts have been shoveled into the big bank furnace, the small businessman has not only been ignored, he is now being informed that taxes, healthcare costs etc. are headed higher next year.  B of A could be a hero in this arena and pick up plenty of new business accounts by offering a program to the most important people in our country, the business owners.

9.  Freeze all credit card APR hikes until TARP has been paid off.  The fact that a bank that’s borrowing at zero percent from the government for almost a year can’t make money with credit cards at a reasonable interest rate (mid-teens let’s say) is a farce.  Show America that you actually deserve to be the “Bank Of” and build back some goodwill.  Right now, everyone hates you and jacking up credit card rates will only make things worse.

So these are the broad strokes of my plan to fix Bank of America.  And no, I won’t say that the road ahead will be difficult, I’ll say the opposite – the road ahead is a cakewalk if I am appointed as your new CEO.  There are enough smart and talented people at B of A/ Merrill Lynch to turn this thing, so getting the strategy right at the top is all that matters. 

Half of your competitors for each line of business have disappeared, literally.  Bernanke is keeping the punch bowl available and spiked with 151 proof rum.  Your cost of borrowing is effectively zero for the foreseeable future.  Forget the investment banking fantasies and global franchise pipe dreams. 

Just get out there are be a damn bank, would you please?  The environment has never been better to do so.

Gretchen Gets It. The entire article is worth reading and even studying. If you get what she is saying, you can understand just how false this Waltz has been.

“The very design of the federal assistance to A.I.G. was that tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to A.I.G.’s counterparties.” The report noted that this was money the banks might not otherwise have received had A.I.G. gone belly-up.

Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Société Générale and other banks were in the group that got full value for their contracts when many others were accepting fire-sale prices.

Ms. Tavakoli argues that Goldman should refund the money it received in the bailout and take back the toxic C.D.O.’s now residing on the Fed’s books — and to do so before it begins showering bonuses on its taxpayer-protected employees.

According to an e-mail message that Goldman sent to the New York Fed at the time, Mr. Geithner talked about the article with Mr. Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, before calling me. When Mr. Geithner called, he said that Goldman had no exposure to an A.I.G. collapse and that the article had left an incorrect impression about that. When I asked Mr. Geithner if he, as head of the regulatory agency overseeing Goldman, had closely examined the firm’s hedges, he said he had not.

Probing, in-depth analyses of regulatory responses to the financial meltdown are worth their weight in gold. Mr. Barofsky’s certainly is. Yet in its rush to put financial reforms into effect, Congress seems uninterested in investigating or grappling with truths contained in such reports — and until it does, our country’s economic and financial system will continue to be at risk.

Revisiting a Fed Waltz With A.I.G.

A RAY of sunlight broke through the Washington fog last week when Neil M. Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, published his office’s report on the government bailout last year of the American International Group.

It’s must reading for any taxpayer hoping to understand why the $182 billion “rescue” of what was once the world’s largest insurer still ranks as the most troubling episode of the financial disaster. And it couldn’t have come at a more pivotal moment.

Many in Washington want to give more regulatory power to the Federal Reserve Board, the banking regulator that orchestrated the A.I.G. bailout. Through this prism, the actions taken in the deal by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time, grow curiouser and curiouser.

Of special note in the report: the Fed failed to develop a workable rescue plan when A.I.G., swamped by demands that it pay off huge insurance contracts that it couldn’t make good on as the economy tanked, began to sink. The report takes the Fed to task as refusing to use its power and prestige to wrestle concessions from A.I.G.’s big, sophisticated and well-heeled trading partners when the government itself had to pay off the contracts.

The Fed, under Mr. Geithner’s direction, caved in to A.I.G.’s counterparties, giving them 100 cents on the dollar for positions that would have been worth far less if A.I.G. had defaulted. Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Société Générale and other banks were in the group that got full value for their contracts when many others were accepting fire-sale prices.

On the question of whether this payout was what the report describes as a “backdoor bailout” of A.I.G.’s counterparties, Mr. Barofsky concluded: “The very design of the federal assistance to A.I.G. was that tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to A.I.G.’s counterparties.” The report noted that this was money the banks might not otherwise have received had A.I.G. gone belly-up.

The report zaps Fed claims that identifying banks that benefited from taxpayer largess would have dire consequences. Fed officials had refused to disclose the identities of the counterparties or details of the payments, warning “that disclosure of the names would undermine A.I.G.’s stability, the privacy and business interests of the counterparties, and the stability of the markets,” the report said.

When the parties were named, “the sky did not fall,” the report said.

Finally, Mr. Barofsky pokes holes in arguments made repeatedly over the past 14 months by Goldman Sachs, A.I.G.’s largest trading partner and recipient of $12.9 billion in taxpayer money in the bailout, that it had faced no material risk in an A.I.G. default — that, in effect, had A.I.G. cratered, Goldman wouldn’t have suffered damage.

In short, there’s an awful lot jammed into this 36-page report.

Even before publishing this analysis, Mr. Barofsky had made a name for himself as one of the few truth tellers in Washington. While others estimate how much the taxpayer will make on various bailout programs, Mr. Barofsky has said that returns are extremely unlikely.

His office has also opened 65 cases to investigate potential fraud in various bailout programs. “When I first took office, I can’t tell you how many times I’d be having a sit-down and warning about potential fraud in the program and I would hear a response basically saying, ‘Oh, they’re bankers, and they wouldn’t put their reputations at risk by committing fraud,’ ” Mr. Barofsky told Bloomberg News a little over a week ago, adding: “I think we’ve done a good job of instilling a greater degree of skepticism that what comes from Wall Street isn’t necessarily the holy grail.”

Mr. Barofsky says the Fed failed to strong-arm the banks when it was negotiating payouts on the A.I.G. contracts. Rather than forcing the banks to accept a steep discount, or “haircut,” the Fed gave the banks $27 billion in taxpayer cash and allowed them to keep an additional $35 billion in collateral already posted by A.I.G. That amounted to about $62 billion for the contracts, which the report describes as “far above their market value at the time.”

Mr. Geithner, who oversaw those negotiations, said in an interview on Friday that the terms of the A.I.G. deal were the best he could get for taxpayers. He considered bailing out A.I.G. to be “offensive,’ he said, but deemed it necessary because a collapse would have undermined the financial system.

“We prevented A.I.G. from defaulting because our judgment was that the damage caused by failure would have been much more costly for the economy and the taxpayer,” Mr. Geithner said. “To most Americans, this looked like a deeply unfair outcome and they find it hard to see any direct benefit. But in fact, their savings are more valuable and secure today.”

The report said that while bailing out Goldman and other investment banks might not have been the intent behind the Fed’s A.I.G. rescue, it certainly was its effect. “By providing A.I.G. with the capital to make these payments, Federal Reserve officials provided A.I.G.’s counterparties with tens of billions of dollars they likely would have not otherwise received had A.I.G. gone into bankruptcy,” the report stated.

As Goldman prepares to pay out nearly $17 billion in bonuses to its employees in one of its most profitable years ever, it is important that an authoritative, independent voice like Mr. Barofsky’s reminds us how the taxpayer bailout of A.I.G. benefited Goldman.

A Goldman spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said that Goldman believed “that a collapse of A.I.G. would have had a very disruptive effect on the financial system and that everyone benefited from the rescue of A.I.G.” Regarding his firm’s own dealings with A.I.G., Mr. van Praag said that Goldman believed that its “exposure was close to zero” because it insulated itself from a downturn in A.I.G.’s fortunes through hedges and collateral it had already received. (Goldman’s complete response is here.)

The inspector noted in his report that Goldman made several arguments for why it believed it was not materially at risk in an A.I.G. default, but he is skeptical of the firm’s reasoning.

So is Janet Tavakoli, an expert in derivatives at Tavakoli Structured Finance, a consulting firm. “On Sept. 16, 2008, David Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, said that whatever the outcome at A.I.G., the direct impact of Goldman’s credit exposure would be immaterial,” she said. “That was false. The report states that if the New York Fed had negotiated concessions, Goldman would have suffered a loss.”

The report says that Goldman would have had difficulty collecting on the hedges it used to insulate itself from an A.I.G. default because everyone’s wallets would have been closing in a panic.

“The prices of the collateralized debt obligations against which Goldman bought protection from A.I.G. were in sickening free fall, and the cost of replacing A.I.G.’s protection would have been sky-high,” she said. “Goldman must have known this, because it underwrote some of those value-destroying C.D.O.’s.”

Ms. Tavakoli argues that Goldman should refund the money it received in the bailout and take back the toxic C.D.O.’s now residing on the Fed’s books — and to do so before it begins showering bonuses on its taxpayer-protected employees.

“A.I.G., a sophisticated investor, foolishly took this risk,” she said. “But the U.S. taxpayer never agreed to be a victim of investments that should undergo a rigorous audit.”

Perhaps Mr. Barofsky will do that audit, and closely examine the securities that A.I.G. insured and that Wall Street titans like Goldman underwrote.

Goldman contends that it had a contractual right to the funds it received in the A.I.G. bailout and that the securities it returned to the government in the deal have increased in value.

For his part, Mr. Geithner disputed much of the inspector general’s findings. He also took issue with the conclusion that the Fed failed to develop a contingency plan for an A.I.G. rescue and largely depended on plans proffered by the banks themselves.

He said the report’s view that the Fed didn’t use its might to get better terms in the rescue was unfair. “This idea that we were unwilling to use leverage to get better terms misses the central reality of the situation — the choice we had was to let A.I.G. default or to prevent default,” he said. “We could not enforce haircuts without causing selective defaults and selective defaults would have brought down the company.”

Mr. Geithner also said that the “perception that this decision by the government, not my decision alone, was made to protect any individual investment bank is unfounded.”

Less than two weeks after the A.I.G. bailout, Mr. Geithner took the firm’s side when he criticized a Sept. 28, 2008, article in The New York Times that I wrote about the A.I.G. bailout. That article included Goldman’s statement that it wouldn’t have been affected by an A.I.G. collapse. Among other things, the article, like Mr. Barofsky’s report, questioned Goldman’s assertion.

According to an e-mail message that Goldman sent to the New York Fed at the time, Mr. Geithner talked about the article with Mr. Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, before calling me. When Mr. Geithner called, he said that Goldman had no exposure to an A.I.G. collapse and that the article had left an incorrect impression about that. When I asked Mr. Geithner if he, as head of the regulatory agency overseeing Goldman, had closely examined the firm’s hedges, he said he had not.

Mr. Geithner told me on Friday that he spoke with Mr. Viniar that day to ensure that Goldman’s hedges were adequate. And, notwithstanding the inspector general’s findings, he said he still believes Goldman was hedged.

Probing, in-depth analyses of regulatory responses to the financial meltdown are worth their weight in gold. Mr. Barofsky’s certainly is. Yet in its rush to put financial reforms into effect, Congress seems uninterested in investigating or grappling with truths contained in such reports — and until it does, our country’s economic and financial system will continue to be at risk.

Daniel Wise of the New York Law Journal has an interesting article out today on a recent New York state court decision involving a complex dispute over assets of former Philippines dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, being held by Merrill Lynch in New York.  The court ordered that the funds be paid to satisfy part of a $2 billion judgment awarded to class members in a successful class action filed in federal court in Hawaii under the Alien Tort Claims Act, on behalf of individuals injured by human rights abuses committed by the Marcos regime.  The current government of the Philippines claims entitlement of the funds, claiming that it has a sovereign interest. 

The same funds were the subject of a federal interpleader action filed by the brokerage to resolve issues over various competing claims to the funds.  The United States Supreme Court dismissed that action in 2007 after concluding that the Philippine government and a Philippine commission, who had sovereign immunity from having to participate in the interpleader proceeding, were indispensible parties.  The state court faced a similar issue, but interpreting the state joinder rule, it found that the two entities were necessary, but not indispensible parties, which meant that the case could go forward without them.

The cases reflect an intriguing and complicated interplay between a variety of private and governmental interests.  The individual class members claim entitlement to a personal remedy for injuries caused by human rights violations of the former Philippine government.  The current Philippine government has a sovereign interest in being free from having its rights determined by foreign courts, and it wants to use the assets to fund public programs.  The State of New York has an interest in making decisions about disputed funds held within its borders, but one of its courts disagrees with the analysis of the nation’s highest court about the importance of the sovereign interests of a foreign nation over those same funds.  In the middle of it all is a bank who probably just doesn’t want to get sued again for giving the money to the wrong party.

Something tells me that there will be much more to this story…

The Huffington Post has a couple articles on the highly critical SIGTARP report discussed previously by The Epicurean Dealmaker. - Ilene

Geithner Singled Out In TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky’s Scathing Report On AIG Bailout

A brutal report issued Monday by a government watchdog holds Timothy Geithner — then the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now the nation’s Treasury Secretary — responsible for overpayments that put billions of extra tax dollars in the coffers of major Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman Sachs.

The authoritative new narrative describes how, while bailing out insurance giant AIG last fall, a team led by Geithner failed nearly every step of the way.

Instead of bargaining with AIG’s numerous counterparties to resolve its billions of dollars in souring derivatives contracts, Geithner’s team ended up paying top dollar for toxic assets — "an amount far above their market value at the time," the report notes.

"There is no question that the effect of FRBNY’s decisions — indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG — was that tens of billions of dollars of Government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG’s counterparties," the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said.

Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia got full value for their derivatives contracts with AIG, and taxpayers got the bill. In total, $27.1 billion of public money was transferred to companies that did business with AIG…

Read more here.

Goldman Sachs Would Have Been Damaged By AIG Failure: SIGTARP Report

As Goldman Sachs put it in a press release last March, the bank had "no material direct economic exposure" to AIG.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "material direct economic exposure."

In a report issued earlier this week, TARP special inspector general Neil Barofsky took a shot at Goldman’s claim that it was insulated against AIG’s demise. While, the report’s language is arcane, the message is simple: if AIG had gone under, Goldman Sachs would have had significant difficulty trying to collect on the the derivatives bets it placed with other banks in order to offset potential AIG losses.

Full article here.

Brian Moynihan is the inside candidate to replace Ken Lewis as CEO of BoA.  He received a Congressional audition yesterday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday. He was underwhelming.

“The words, “Too Big to Fail,” seem to be in every news media pages these days. Regarding this issue, Ms. Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post criticized the US systematic failure of punishing immoral financial business practices that legally schemed and robbed their victims or unjustifiably awarded their executives even after their failed businesses, letting these legal crimes and their players escape without taking responsibility. This systematic loophole in existing (or non-existing) rules and regulations that govern financial sector sets the foundation of recurring similar business schemes over and over.

Ms. Huffington cited two such cases. The first case was JPMorgan’s scheme on bribing the officials of Alabama’s Jefferson County to obtain billion dollar contract and then persuading them to switch from fixed rate bonds to bonds hedged with risky derivatives, which drove the County on the verge of bankruptcy. Another case was Merrill Lynch’s reward of $3.6 billion bonuses to its executives, without informing its shareholders, even after their $27 billion-losing-business failure and on the blink of being acquired by Bank of America. Ms. Huffington’s blog post on this issue is listed at the end of this writing….”

Read more at:

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/11/bailouts_economic_recovery_pla.html

Last Year's Spirt of Community Leadership Award Winners

Scottsdale Leadership will host the 10th annual Community Leadership Awards Luncheon on Friday, Dec. 4, sponsored by APS and Scottsdale Insurance, at the Hilton Scottsdale Resort & Villas, located at 6333 North Scottsdale Rd. The event is open to the public and tickets are available at www.scottsdaleleadership.org.

At the luncheon, the 2009 recipients of the Drinkwater Community Leadership, Frank W. Hodges Alumni Achievement, Corporate Leadership, and Youth Leadership awards will be recognized.

• The Drinkwater Leadership award, presented by Merrill Lynch, commemorates former Scottsdale Mayor Herb Drinkwater’s commitment to the city by honoring a member of the community who has made a significant and notable contribution to the greater Scottsdale community. This year’s recipient is: Marc Miller. Miller serves on the Scottsdale Railroad and Mechanical Society board and is a member of the Scottsdale Charros Community Foundation investment committee.

• The Hodges Alumni Achievement award, presented by Prestige Cleaners, commemorates Frank W. Hodges, a graduate of Scottsdale Leadership Class I, by honoring a Scottsdale Leadership alumnus who has and continues to illustrate exemplary community service and humanitarian values. This year’s recipient is long-time Scottsdale resident, Linda Milhaven, a successful businesswoman in the banking industry with an MBA from Columbia University. Milhaven serves as the Board Chair for the Scottsdale Cultural Council, is a STARS board member and serves as a Scottsdale City Commissioner.

• The Corporate Leadership award, presented by Henkel Consumer Goods Inc., honors a company that supports leadership as a key organizational philosophy. Companies eligible for this award encourage employees to become involved in community service, honor humanitarian values, and positively impact the community through leadership and financial support. This year’s recipient is APS, one of the largest corporations headquartered in Arizona, and a company that embraces its responsibility to serve the communities in which its employees live, work and play.

• The Youth Leadership award, presented by Scottsdale Active 20-30 Club and Foundation, recognizes a teenager who exhibits leadership skills at school and within their community. This year’s recipient is Benjamin Johnson, a senior at Desert Mountain High School, who plays saxophone in the marching and jazz bands, is a goalie for the Desert Mountain Club lacrosse team and is an Eagle Scout with Boy Scouts of America Troop 440.

Please join us for this wonderful event!

Two Theives

Since taking control of both the House and Senate, Democrats have went bat-shit crazy with their power. It didn’t start with Obama’s stimulus and it won’t end with all the secret back-room dealings with special interest groups, as we saw with the health care scam. Democrats are hiding things from the American taxpayer, on purpose.

Now we have Democrats, in control of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, hiding the secret dealings that went on between our government [see Timothy Geithner], Bank of America and Merrill Lynch.

The ongoing feud between the top Republican and Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee flared up again Monday — this time over the exclusion of government witnesses from an upcoming hearing on the federal government’s role in Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

The Oversight panel has been investigating why the merger between Bank of America and Merrill Lynch was first announced as a stock-only transaction.

Also, take the fact that ex-Bank of America CEO, Ken Lewis, testified that the government urged him to be silent about this deal. The Democrats are hiding things because this entire deal involves Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, ex-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson and the tax-cheat, current Treasury Secretary Timothy “TurboTax” Geithner.

All of this ties to Obama and that is another reason the Democrats do not want to take part with this investigation. They are holding and stalling in every attempt to hide what really happened in this back-door dealing scandal. And they call Republicans obstructionists.

Why won’t the Democrats call government witnesses to testify about this merger? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif) says that he had been”assured” that these witnesses would be available to testify. It’s another stall tactic.

The back and forth between Issa and Towns over the testimony is just the latest in a series of spats for the Members. The disagreement began earlier this year when Issa began pursuing an investigation into a controversial mortgage program by failed lending giant Countrywide for public officials and other prominent figures. And just last month, Towns infuriated Issa when he locked GOP members out of an Oversight meeting room.

Who was involved with these “sweetheart deals” commonly called “friends of Angelo?” Two Democratic Senators. The very corrupt Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad.

The stimulus bill was written in the dark and kept out of sight. The health care bill was written and kept out of sight. What are the Democrats and the “most transparent White House in history” hiding?

A indústria brasileira precisa aprender um pouco mais a trabalhar melhor com essa coisa chamada marketing. Os pequenos empresários, principalmente. Os jornalistas: nem falo nada. Falta profissionalismo por aqui.

Daniel Pinheiro

————————————————-

Como criar uma febre

Com estratégias pouco convencionais, a Summit, uma pequena produtora americana, conseguiu transformar a série Crepúsculo num dos maiores fenômenos do cinema na atualidade

Por Adriana Pavlova | 29.10.2009 | 00h01

Fonte: EXAME

A saga Crepúsculo, escrita pela americana Stephenie Meyer, tinha tudo para ser apenas mais um best-seller juvenil de ficção. Baseada no romance entre um jovem vampiro e sua colega de colégio, a história teve sua adaptação para o cinema recusada pelo estúdio americano Paramount em 2006, sob a alegação de que se tratava de um enredo batido e sem charme algum — o fato de se tratar de uma fábula açucarada, desprovida de qualquer erotismo, também não ajudou. Naquela época, o livro havia vendido pouco mais de 4 milhões de exemplares — um número expressivo, mas ainda pequeno perto dos atuais 77 milhões vendidos pela série de quatro livros. O enredo acabou, então, vendido a uma pequena produtora americana por uma bagatela — e se transformou num dos maiores fenômenos do cinema da atualidade. Lançado em novembro de 2008, o filme Crepúsculo faturou 400 milhões de dólares e foi visto por mais de 30 milhões de espectadores no mundo. A expectativa dos produtores é que o frenesi se repita no próximo episódio, batizado de Lua Nova, que chega aos cinemas em novembro. As vendas antecipadas de ingressos, disponíveis desde abril, esgotaram-se em mais da metade dos cinemas americanos, feito que só havia sido alcançado pela série Guerra nas Estrelas. “Notamos que havia um forte burburinho na internet entre os fãs do livro e decidimos aproveitar isso”, afirmou a EXAME Patrick Wachsberger, sócio da Summit Entertainment, responsável pela produção do filme.

Até o lançamento de Crepúsculo, a Summit era uma desconhecida no mercado cinematográfico. Sem contar com a mesma verba dos grandes estúdios, a pequena produtora havia se especializado em películas obscuras, como o thriller de terror P2 e a comédia Sex Drive — ambos fracassos retumbantes de bilheteria. A situação começaria a mudar em 2006, quando Wachsberger leu Crepúsculo. “Nosso mérito foi ter percebido que essa história tinha um enorme potencial”, diz ele. Veterano da indústria cinematográfica, Wachsberger decidiu partir para o tudo ou nada. Enquanto negociava os direitos da saga, ele foi bater à porta de bancos e fundos de investimento interessados em financiar a produção. A peregrinação, que incluiu o até então prestigiado banco Merrill Lynch, rendeu-lhe um aporte de 1 bilhão de dólares por parte dos investidores — dinheiro suficiente para bancar a empresa pelos próximos dez anos (Crepúsculo custou meros 37 milhões de dólares). “Saímos definitivamente do anonimato”, diz Wachsberger. “Com a saga, fizemos mais do que produzir um filme. Criamos uma febre.”

Pelos planos de Wachsberger, a saga vampiresca deverá render 3 bilhões de dólares até 2012, quando será lançado o último filme. Para isso, os executivos da produtora lançaram mão de uma estratégia de marketing nada convencional, direcionada, sobretudo, ao público pré-adolescente — segmento disputado a tapa pelos grandes estúdios graças ao ímpeto consumista e ao senso de coletividade típicos dessa faixa etária. O primeiro passo foi apresentar os atores, até então desconhecidos, aos jovens americanos. Antes da estreia do primeiro filme, a empresa organizou um tour com os protagonistas pelos principais shopping centers dos Estados Unidos. Foram, ao todo, 13 expedições, que reuniram milhares de pessoas, a maioria meninas com até 15 anos de idade. “O êxito de qualquer iniciativa passa pela conquista desses garotos”, diz Sandi Adamiu, diretor da Paris Filmes no Brasil. Para o segundo filme, a Summit fechou uma parceria com o canal de TV a cabo Reelzchannel para a exibição de um programa semanal dedicado aos bastidores da produção de Lua Nova. “É preciso criar um bochicho em torno da estreia”, diz Wachsberger.

Nem as mães dos adolescentes escaparam. A empresa lançou um blog na internet para que elas acompanhem o desenrolar das filmagens — e tenham certeza de que seus filhos estão sendo expostos a um conteúdo comportado. Para produzir o blog, a Summit despachou cinco profissionais para o set de gravação. Além de alimentar o site com novidades, eles têm de tirar eventuais dúvidas de pais aflitos. O mais importante nesse contato é transmitir confiança. “Tudo foi minuciosamente pensado para atrair, também, um público mais adulto”, afirma Wachsberger. Para o lançamento do DVD de Crepúsculo, em março, a empresa organizou sessões especiais à meia-noite — normalmente os filmes voltados para o público juvenil ocupam as matinês. Mas que graça teria seguir o padrão? A criação do buzz em torno do lançamento teve resultado imediato: só no primeiro dia, foram vendidos 3 milhões de DVDs, quase a metade do total vendido até agora. A tática deverá ser repetida com Lua Nova.

Embora se trate de fábulas distintas, Crepúsculo tenta repetir, em maior ou menor grau, o mesmo sucesso alcançado por Harry Potter, uma das séries mais bem-sucedidas da história do cinema, com faturamento total na casa dos 9 bilhões de dólares. Inspirada na estratégia dos produtores da saga do menino bruxo, a Summit antecipou em quase um ano a venda de produtos licenciados com a marca Lua Nova, do segundo filme. Desde o mês de março, mais de 350 produtos, entre roupas, acessórios, bonecos, joias e jogos de videogame, têm lotado as principais lojas de departamentos dos Estados Unidos. “Graças ao sucesso da saga, há uma série de empresas nos procurando para fazer parceria”, afirma Wachsberger. Uma delas é a sueca Volvo. A montadora, conhecida pela sobriedade (ou senioridade) de seus veículos, acredita que o filme ajudará a promover dois de seus modelos mais esportivos entre o público jovem (os carros são dirigidos pelo neogalã Robert Pattinson, protagonista dos filmes). Apesar de “copiar” parte da estratégia de marketing da saga do menino bruxo de Hogwarts, o pessoal da Summit tomou um cuidado: não entrar na disputa pelo mesmo público. Enquanto as histórias de Harry Potter chegam às telas no meio do ano, em pleno verão americano, a Summit optou por lançar seus filmes no mês de novembro (a exceção será Eclipse, que estreia em julho do ano que vem).

Fora das telas, a Summit corre contra o tempo para produzir os outros três filmes da série (o último livro, Amanhecer, será dividido em duas partes). A empresa planeja lançar Eclipse, baseado no terceiro livro da saga, apenas oito meses depois de seu antecessor. Com isso, a Summit espera aproveitar ao máximo o clima de euforia que se estabeleceu em torno da história, evitando, assim, uma das principais armadilhas desse tipo de série: o envelhecimento do público-alvo e o consequente desinteresse pela fábula. “Nesse mercado, timing é tudo”, afirma Wachsberger. Para evitar uma possível redução nas vendas de ingressos daqui para a frente, a Summit decidiu apimentar a sequência, incluindo cenas de ação com lobisomens e uma trama mais sofisticada. A ideia é arrebanhar fãs entre o público masculino, ainda reticente em relação ao romance meloso que embalou o primeiro filme — menos de um terço dos espectadores de Crepúsculo são homens. Se conseguir esse feito, Wachsberger terá provado que é capaz de não somente criar uma febre, mas mantê-la ardendo por algum tempo.

by Patricia Sellers

Ted Dimon Sr. started a new job yesterday.

Not just any job. Formerly a broker at Merrill Lynch, Dimon joined the brokerage unit of JPMorgan Chase (JPM). His son happens to be CEO of the parent company.

Word is, Jamie Dimon steered clear of the deal to hire his 78-year-old dad, who arrived with five other Merrill brokers in tow. According to people close to father and son, Ted Dimon Sr. initially reached out to Barry Sommers, the CEO of Bear Stearns Private Client Services, in the spring of last year, after JPMorgan Chase bought Bear on the cheap as the Wall Street firm was collapsing. Talks revved up in the past four months, as Merrill has been adjusting to its own integration into Bank of America (BAC) and new leadership under former Citigroup (C) exec Sallie Krawcheck.

It’s been musical chairs across the industry lately. (The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that UBS’ (UBS) new wealth management boss, Bob McCann, who hails from Merrill, is hiring a team of top guns from his old firm.) For the elder Dimon, the rhythm could not be more different at 277 Park Avenue, where his office is directly across the street from his son’s. (“As I look from the third floor over Park Avenue, I have a bird’s-eye view of when Jamie gets in the morning,” Dimon Sr. said through a JPMorgan spokesman this morning.) Whereas BofA Merrill Lynch employs 14,979 financial advisors (as brokers like to be called), JPMorgan’s Bear operation is a boutique with just 380 such salespeople. Jamie Dimon, who is 53, wants to expand the business, though. He’s talked about upping the number to 1,000.

We hoped to chat with Ted Sr., but he’s apparently too busy building client assets. (He started his new job on the day the Dow hit a 13-month high.) We do have a sense of how the father-son dynamic will work at JPMorgan Chase. In Last Man Standing, the recently released biography of Jamie Dimon, author Duff McDonald says that when Ted Sr., the son of Greek immigrants who became a stockbroker 50 years ago, was working for Salomon Smith Barney under Jamie and Sandy Weill, “there might be a company name on his business card, but Ted Dimon Sr. reported to no one.” He was a “free agent,” and Jamie confirmed that “he would never say I was his boss.”

It was Ted Sr. who introduced Jamie and Sandy Weill decades ago when Jamie was a teenager and the families socialized together. If you’re familiar with the Shakespearean saga that followed, you probably know that Jamie wrote an economics paper at Tufts University, where he went to college,  about the 1974 merger of Hayden Stone (Weill’s company) and Shearson, Hammill (where Ted Sr. worked). Impressed with Jamie’s analysis, Weill hired the brash whiz kid to work for him.

And they went on to assemble the financial-services empire that became Citigroup. Their relationship unraveled over personal rivalries and jealousies. Weill fired Dimon. And Dimon went on to be CEO of Bank One and then, in 2005, JPMorgan Chase.

Now Ted Dimon is staking his future at JPMorgan, which outranks Citigroup, BofA, and even Goldman Sachs (GS) in stock-market capitalization. No dummy, that Dimon.

One of the perks of corporate office is the presumption of stature and legitimacy.  In other words, we typically bring all sorts of assumptions along when we see or read about a CEO.  I want to suggest that we are basically wrong–that the reality of the man behind the curtain is far different than what is portrayed. 

For example, on the Sept. 13-14, 2008 weekend before the Monday when Lehman Brothers declared bankrupcy and Bank of America agreed to purchase Merrill Lynch, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and NY Fed Chair Tim Geithner summoned the CEO’s of the major Wall Street banks (except Lehman) to the NY Fed building.  Paulson and Geithner told the assembled executives that they need to figure out how to save Lehman because if that firm were to go under, the financial market itself would stand a good chance of collapsing.   The CEO’s were slow to view the market itself as their responsibility, in spite of the fact that their own self-interest depended on a viable marketplace in finance.  On the Friday night and Saturday, they tried to figure out how their firms could profit from picking over Lehman’s remaining assets.  On the Saturday morning, they resorted to doing impressions of Paulson and Geithner and betting on a computer game on one of their blackberries.   Finally on Sunday, Barclays offered to buy the financially viable part of Lehman and proposed a consortium funded by the other banks in the meeting to support Lehman’s debt.   Even though Barclays should perhaps have agreed to join the consortium, the other banks were on the brink of agreeing to contribute at least a billion each to the consortium–essentially propping up the mistakes of one of their rivals while letting another rival (Barclays) to walk away with the “good” Lehman.  The British government ended up refusing to allow Barclays to buy even the “good” Lehman, making the CEO’s look good in comparison. 

I have to give the CEO’s credit for agreeing to the consortium.  I would not have expected it.  However, their antics during the first half of the weekend evince a childish behavior that is quite unbecoming for men making millions a year.    The financial system hung in the balance and the CEO’s of the banks too big to fail were literally behaving like teenagers until Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan exercised some statesmanship (similar to JP himself in 1907), stepping up to the plate and asking the other execs whether their banks would contribute a billion each too. 

Even so, in reading about the behavior on the Friday night and Saturday, I have to conclude that what we are led to believe concerning the CEO’s is far too convenient for them and utterly inaccurate.   If I am right, we are subject to an illusion and we don’t even know it.  Meanwhile, people are profiting from it who ought not.   Yet they need not worry.  We will continue voting for the same old candidates. We won’t insist on real accountability in corporate governance.   Recently, Andrew Sorkin of the NYT and author of Too Big to Fail, which is my source here (see pp. 330ff), said that he (and we) didn’t know much about what was going on “because they didn’t want us to know” (Tavis Smiley Show, PBS, 11/9/09).  That is, it is no accident, kein zufall, that we will likely remain asleep.   Perhaps this is for the best, for were we to wake up, the bad smell might be too emetic for us herd animals to bear.   Bad smell! Go back to sleep!  It is as though we are hard-wired to sleep, and the pill-poppers are only too happy to oblige.

by Alicia Towler White, for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, November 9 , 2009.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, the premier provider of legal services to technology, life sciences, and growth enterprises worldwide, today announced that Warren S. de Wied has become a partner at the firm. A former managing director in the mergers and acquisitions group at Bank of America Merrill Lynch and, previously, co-leader of the mergers and acquisitions practice at Fried Frank, de Wied will be based in the firm’s New York office.

“With his remarkable corporate transactional experience, Warren brings to the firm top-level M&A, corporate governance, and anti-takeover expertise across a broad spectrum of industries,” said Chairman Larry Sonsini. “He will be a terrific addition to our already strong mergers and acquisitions team and an invaluable asset as we further expand our focus on serving business enterprises across the country, including large public-company clients in the East Coast market.”…(continue reading)

Sir Jamie Dimon

I caught this in the New York Post this morning, thought it was pretty cool:

“I love the retail broker business because my dad is a broker and my grandfather was a broker and it was the first job I ever had,” Jamie Dimon, 53, said at a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association meeting Oct. 27. “So if you are really, really good, call JPMorgan. We’d be happy to hire you.”

Yiu Can't Predict a Hero

In You Can’t Predict a Hero, Joseph J. Grano, Jr. provides a riveting, at times refreshingly candid memoir in which he shares the career and life lessons that he has learned throughout several decades of corporate leadership and public service. He served in Viet Nam as an officer of Green Berets, was severely wounded, returned to the U.S. (after six years of military service), bringing home with him “not just maturity, but a body full of shrapnel and enough broken bones and torn muscles, tendons, and ligaments to quality me as 60 percent disabled. Instead of a sheepskin, I had a Bronze star with a V for valor. Without a college education and with severe physical limitations, I did not know what my future would hold.”

Over time, demonstrating courage, determination, focus, and effort that remain (for him) “incomprehensible,” Grano achieved success in a series of increasingly more demanding corporate positions at Merrill Lynch, PaineWebber, and following a merger, UBS PaineWebber. He later chaired the President’s Homeland Security Advisory Council. Of special interest to me are the situations in which Grano “walks the walk” when setting an example of the core values he affirms. While serving in Viet Nam, he exercised his authority as commander on the ground and denied permission for the division’s commanding officer’s helicopter to land. The area was too dangerous. The pilot called back and repeated, “Requesting permission to land,” and then added, “Don’t you know who’s asking?”

Grano replied, “I know who’s asking, but I don’t give a damn. Permission’s still denied.” A day later, once the area had been secured, he gave permission for the helicopter to land. The general stormed out of it and headed straight for him. “Who the hell do you think you are stopping me from visiting my troops?” he bellowed. “Sir, we were having contact with snipers,” Grano explained, and pointing to the general’s gleaming belt buckle, said, “You see that big eagle on your stomach? Well, I don’t give a damn about you, but those guys are terrible shots. I’m afraid they’ll miss you and hit me.” The general stared at him for a minute, then burst out laughing. Leaders need to be decisive, making tough decisions under pressure, but it also helps to have a sense of humor. That certainly proved to be true on numerous occasions later in Grano’s career.

“One of the realities of combat is that you can’t predict a hero.” That may be true in most instances but Grano seems to be an exception because in combat and then later throughout his career as a corporate executive, his behavior was predictable because his values were non-negotiable.

Gasparino on "The Sellout"

Courtesy of Jesse’s Café Américain

Today’s post will be just a little, well actually, a lot off the subject of braces or Invisalign, or even orthodontics in general for that matter.  I just have to let you know what a grand opportunity I had yesterday as the CEO of Apple Orthodontix and a customer of Bank of America, the nations largest corporate bank.

I was invited, along with 50+ other B of A and Merrill Lynch guests to participate in a Fantasy Football Camp held at the new Cowboys Stadium!   I, along with these other old men and a few women, had a great time getting the royal treatment, as we were escorted down into the Dallas Cowboys locker room where the current NFL stars dress and prepare for Monday Night Football and the other games.  We shared the locker space with the likes of Tony Romo, Roy Williams, DeMarcus Ware, and my two favorite Cowboys, Orlando Scandrick and Jay Ratilff (They are the two Cowboy players that have their braces on with Apple Orthodontix in our Coppell, TX office.).

From the locker room, we dressed in our Tony Romo shirts and headed off to the media room where we were introduced to our two Fantasy Football Coaches, former NFL Cowboys themselves, Bill Bates and Rocket Ismail!  They talked to all of us about being careful and taking care of our bodies.  I mean think about it, a bunch of 40+ and some 50+ men and women out there trying to live their glory days!, watch out!  Once that was finished, we were put in alphabetical order and marched into the tunnell ready to run onto the field.  Yep, they let us do that too!  As they called out our names, we were shown on the now, world famous HD Jumbo Tron, manufactured by Mitsubishi, the largest of its kind in the world!

Then we had a singing of the National Anthem by one of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders (Sarah, the blonde), and after that, we split up into 4 teams and began our stretching and warm-ups.  We went through all the basic football drills to warm our old muscles up and prepare for the games to begin.  Bill Bates was our Defensive Coach while Rocket Ismail was the Offensive Coach.  We had a great time, with coaches, media, cheerleaders and even Referees!  They even took pictures of us too! 

Each team played two games of flag football at the same time.  Each game was played from the 40 yard line to the end zone.  What a treat it was to watch some these old kodgers stumble as they tried to run and catch a ball.  I am sure they said the same about me.  We had a few injuries occur during the games, nothing that a little needle and thread, Ben-Gay, or a Swedish Massage couldn’t remedy.

One of the highlights I had personally was to ask Rocket Ismail to a foot race.  For those of you who don’t know, he was one of the fastest men in football during his NFL days.  I made one fatal mistake in asking though….Not only did he say “yes” but I asked to run at the end of the event and not at the first.  What was left of my muscles was definitely not enough, and my ego was not enough to keep up with this young 40 yr-old speedster.  I am confident that even if my ego and muscles were at their peak… he still would beat me handily.

It was a fabulous event.  The luncheon afterward was tremendous and the enitire day was blissful.  Today is another day though… does anyone out there have a couple of Advil I could use?

Great excerpt from Rosenberg’s daily email:

MYTHS AND REALITIES

Myth: Warren Buffett is making a big wager on the U.S. economy.

Reality: The Oracle believes that with oil prices where they are and likely to go higher, rails will grab transport share from the truckers. This may also be a back-door bullish call on coal. Or maybe it’s a constructive sign on buying of U.S. made goods out of Canada where local domestic demand is hanging in just fine, thank you very much.

Myth: There are signs of life in the retail sector.

Reality: Also, don’t forget that these are YoY same store sales from surviving retailers. Thousands have gone bankrupt in the last year, for example Circuit City, which for sure has helped BestBuy’s activity, and there are countless other examples. So the data, for lack of a better term, are distorted and tell you very little about what consumers are doing in the aggregate. October auto sales in the U.S. did pick up from September’s abyss, but this was still the eighth worst month in the last 27 years. And yes, it does look like U.S. chain store sales are going to come in somewhere between +1.0-2.0% year-over-year. But beware. This actually says more about the detonation that took place a year ago — the “base” for the year-over-year calculations — than anything truly robust at the present time.

Myth: The low end consumer is adjusting to the new frugality more than the high end.

Reality: Also keep an eye on where people are buying their food and what food they are buying (good article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal on this) — Cheesecake Factory is all of a sudden seeing a burst of sales activity (Starbucks too from what we are hearing and reading) that is eluding the fast-food chains at the moment. If only it were only so. Unfortunately, a gap has opened between employment-dependant spending and wealth-dependant spending. After all, the investor class is giddy after a 60% rally from the March lows in equities, a rally in which 2.7 million jobs in the U.S. have been lost. Epic. So in October, luxury goods sales came in at +6.5% YoY and jewellry at +7.2%! Meanwhile, department stores who cater to the guy (and gal) on the street posted a 1.5% sales decline (as per MasterCard’s SpendingPulse survey).

Myth: We have financial and tech leadership.

Reality: As for tech, well, Morgan Stanley researchers laid down the guantlet with its downgrade of semiconductor stocks to “cautious” from “attractive” (we love Wall Street lingo, having been there and done that. Why not shout “sell, Mortimer, sell!”?) And what about that downgrade to Intel? We did. But not any longer. Not after UBS reported its larger-than-expected Q4 loss, and not after Lloyds and RBS announced their need to raise capital (can they really be the only ones?).  So the U.S. economy is growing again, but the real question should be “why only by 3.5%”?

Myth: The boom in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity says that corporate America is feeling good about recovery prospects.

Reality: While this is what we hear from many strategists, there may be other factors at play that are more strategic and micro in nature. Keep in mind that companies are sitting on a record cash hoard ($702 billion in the S&P 500 universe). If they were truly optimistic, they would be moving to expand their business organically. Instead, most of the M&A activity has been driven by companies buying out their competitors to grow a part of their operations that they were lagging in. As for the “boom” part — let’s get a grip. So far this year, there have been 5,786 deals worth $620 billion (Dealogic data — for the U.S.). That is down 37% from a year ago (the level) and down 55% from where we were two-years ago. Matt Krantz at the USA Today could not have put it more succinctly — “despite the banner headlines, dealmaking is still stuck in the post-credit-bubble malaise.”

to Read the entire text : http://bit.ly/2lREWG

We pick up the narrative on Monday, March 10, 2008, click here for earlier post.

On Friday prior, JPM Chase came to an agreement on a 28-day loan for Bear Stearns and you will see in the prior post how involved Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was in the deal.

So back to Monday the 10th, Paulson spends most of the morning on the phone with Keith Hennessey who was Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council.

Later that morning the phone log shows four calls to Jerry Corrigan, former President of the NY Fed, but at this time was Managing Director in the office of the Chairman for Goldman Sachs and later in 2008 became chairman of Goldman Sachs holding company GS Bank.

He then has lunch at the White House with presidential staff members.

At 5pm Paulson convenes the first meeting of the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, AKA Plunge Protection Team.

On Tuesday the 11th Paulson redacted the first two hours of his day, which were out of the office. He then spoke with Fed chief Ben Bernanke and White House’s Hennessey and SEC chief Chris Cox.

After the call to Cox, Paulson conducts a typical schedule, but is in constant contact with Tim Geithner and White House aides. At the end of the day he meets with an assistant Chinese finance minister.

On March 12^th, which is the alleged date of the closed session of the House. This act was a rarity for the people’s house. According to the House of Representatives’ own historic record this was only the fourth time since 1830 that the House closed the floor allowing only its members and select aides to hear the debate.

The secretive discussion was said to be focused on clandestine monitoring efforts to combat terrorism. There’s other chatter that the debate was centered on a financial destruction based on the fall of Bear Stearns, which I believe was considered a fait accompli by Paulson already.

Before the markets opened on the 12^th the Plunge Protection Team had already met for 45 minutes. Paulson alerts the White House through Hennessey, who is the equivalent to Larry Summers in the Obama administration, and Joel Kaplan, Deputy Chief of Staff and Josh Bolton his boss.

He then has a White House Lunch with what’s described as attended by  “Economic Principals.” Paulson then has a call into Geithner, who could be the conduit to Wall Street on the anticipated House session.

Paulson is the in the Oval Office with the President for an hour, which is an extraordinary amount of time with the President judging from all the other meetings the Treasury Secretary’s schedule has listed as POTUS meetings.

Paulson ends his day with a call to White House Deputy press officer Tony Fratto and calls Sen. Harry Reid from his home.

Thursday, March 13 Paulson starts his day with a 6am call to the EU’s Trichet, which again is odd from the standpoint that Trichet is Bernanke’s peer not Paulson.

The next two hours are redacted so it’s difficult to decipher his moves. After his blackout Paulson continues his dialog with the White House through Kaplan, Bolton.

Paulson then has a 30-minute call with the President.

During the day Paulson had press interviews with CNBC, Washington Post and New York Times. None of these interviews uncovered any of the information cited here. However there is a call late in the day to Bill Keller, editor of the Times. Not sure if this was Paulson doing damage control to squelch any leaks.

Friday, March 14^th was the fateful day for Bear Stearns. Paulson begins the day with a 5:30am conference call with Geithner from his home. Although it is labeled as a conference call no other participants are listed.

Paulson then takes a call from the President at his home at 6:30am. Between this call and the market open Paulson speaks with White House aides three times, Geithner four times including a second conference call of the morning with no other participants listed again and SEC chief Cox.

Once the market opens Paulson raises the curtain on his M&A window and begins to call all of Wall St. In order: Ken Lewis, BofA; Bob Rubin, former Treasury Secretary, Citi director; Lehman’s Dick Fuld; Tim Geithner; Merrill’s John Thain; Goldman’s Lloyd Blankfein; Morgan’s John Mack and then after another Geithner call Paulson calls JPM’s Jamie Dimon.

Most likely he told Dimon no one on the Street or at the White House had the appetite to help Bear Stearns and that JPM had to go it alone with no backstop.

But the hits keep on coming that day.

After Dimon, Paulson speaks with Trichet of the EU and someone else who is redacted. He then spends an hour with Geithner before calling Dimon again. When he hangs up with Dimon, he takes a call from President Bush.

After Paulson hangs up with President Bush he then calls Geithner to work on a game plan before the both of them call Bear’s Alan Schwartz to break the news that Dimon and JPM were pulling the rug out from under him and that the administration was not going to bail out the firm.

Then we had the fire sale over the weekend to JPM and the rest is history.

For more on Wall and Washington and the economy see: http://mgray12.wordpress.com